Here's the actual graph image of the last 3 years: http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.8976.1360689365!/image/Flu.jpg_gen/derivatives/fullsize/Flu.jpg http://w

Here's the actual graph image of the last 3 years: http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.8976.1360689365!/image/Flu.jpg_gen/derivatives/fullsize/Flu.jpg http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.8976.1360689365!/image/F... The data is there, it's correct, it accurately measures how much people are talking about the flu. The fact that it's lined up with past flu seasons is simply a good sign of correlation in the past. The area between the inflated google trend and the real number of cases is the amount of hype. It's been talked about in the media and online like it was an epidemic of 10 times the size that it actually was, and this likely had a positive effect on vaccination rates and conscientiousness. The google data is still extremely useful as a measure of our collective attention, but the article really fails to give it credit and seems to think that it's failed somehow. It could be further refined, sure, but it's still extremely useful and extremely true. It shows that this year, the flu went viral, and the attention was amplified. Maybe we need a Google Flu Tracker Tracker? (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Otk-knCm-nw/ShT1qAUsWiI/AAAAAAAAAQA/pNGSJmoef6c/s400/bee+watcher2.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Otk-knCm-nw/ShT1qAUsWiI/AAAAAAAAAQ...)